The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

How do we promote the values of interests of Americans, irrespective of political party? And what ARE those, anyway? What "program" would YOU be in favor of?

The Supreme Court has spent the better part of 20 years chipping away at American democracy, from the infamous case of Bush v. Gore to its refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering to a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system (Citizens United is the best known of these, but McConnell v. FEC is probably more important) to the absurd Shelby County v. Holder decision in (which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem).

The conservative justices's basic worldview is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what subjects impact interstate commerce or how to set up regulatory agencies, the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted. Elected officials are, however, now having a much easier time getting away with accepting bribes. (Senator's bribery case www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/11/15/16656784/menendez-corruption-supreme-court )

Putting Kavanaugh on the bench will likely exacerbate these problems. But critically, in most respects, the justice he’s replacing was already very much part of the problem, and anyone Trump might have appointed instead of Kavanaugh would be just as bad. His ascension is not so much an alarming new point of departure as a useful opportunity for people to open their eyes to what’s been happening for a while.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

What can democrats do ... it depends on the tools at their disposal, and whether or not they get their act together.

Looking at the polls, the 'democratic' party lead has shrunk significantly, from double digits to single digits in many cases, even low single digits. But assuming the leads, while narrow, have solidified, democrats may gain control of the House. That puts them in position to be the Party of No. Last time they were in that position (in the Senate, led by the forgettable marshmallow Harry Reid), they forgot to put on their big-boy pants. Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us. As a result, they looked like whipped dogs trying to figure out how not to get kicked. Their tenure was an abysmal failure.

ETA: Even if they don't gain a single majority anywhere, democrats have the power of words. This would be the perfect opportunity for democrats to formulate their message.

I'd say the first thing the Democrats need to do is ditch the gun control stance. It doesn't matter how terrifying some of the other things that a Republican lead Supreme Court can mean when the flip side has the real fear of losing the 2nd Amendment rights.

Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki:
What can democrats do ... it depends on the tools at their disposal, and whether or not they get their act together.

Looking at the polls, the 'democratic' party lead has shrunk significantly, from double digits to single digits in many cases, even low single digits. But assuming the leads, while narrow, have solidified, democrats may gain control of the House. That puts them in position to be the Party of No. Last time they were in that position (in the Senate, led by the forgettable marshmallow Harry Reid), they forgot to put on their big-boy pants. Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us. As a result, they looked like whipped dogs trying to figure out how not to get kicked. Their tenure was an abysmal failure.

ETA: Even if they don't gain a single majority anywhere, democrats have the power of words. This would be the perfect opportunity for democrats to formulate their message.

Quote:Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us.- KIKI

I don't know HOW we got so "blessed" by being on the (apparently) permanent list of who gets a DNC survey every two-three months, but if the questions that they ask are any indication, the DNC STILL hasn't figured out what went wrong.

I wish I had that survey here so I could refer to it, but I just mailed it off, making liberal use of the "other" option and any blank spaces I could find.

According to the survey, the DNC is concerned with ... or assumes that WE'RE concerned with ... or is trying to elevate the issues of ...

They asked What is it about the Republican Party policy that you disagree with? and What is it about the Trump Presidency that disturbs you? one of the answers to that is Russia.

Next time I get one of those surveys I'll post what they contain so you can get a view of what they seem to be focusing on.

I think the thing that disturbs me ... aside from the fact that Dems seem to be as war-mongering as Repubs, if not more so ... is that they seem to have lost focus that in order to pay for all of the goodies that they want, you need a robust economy, which means production and jobs. It's not enuf to "tax the rich" because the money that the rich have was created out of thin air, it means nothing and can disappear in an instant in a financial meltdown.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Quote: The Supreme Court has spent the better part of 20 years chipping away at American democracy, from the infamous case of Bush v. Gore

No kidding.

Quote: to its refusal to look at the problem of partisan gerrymandering

Okay, I had to look this up. I wondered what the basis was for the Federal government to be involved in a state's drawing of districts. There are two requirements for Federal districts (which btw might be based in the Constitution, but I don't see a direct Constitutional mandate) - each district has to represent almost exactly the same number of people, and (according to the Voting rights Act of 1965) racial minorities cannot be denied representation. http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php

I mention this because it is a reminder that Federal intervention in redistricting in based on a LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS. Where Congress passed one law, they can pass another.

Quote: to a series of judicial decisions striking down efforts to regulate the campaign finance system (Citizens United is the best known of these, but McConnell v. FEC is probably more important)

Looking into this, it seems that Citizens United actually overruled McConnell v FEC; these decisions appear to be in conflict with each other, but you're posting as if they have a common aim. What is your interpretation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC

Quote:to the absurd Shelby County v. Holder decision in (which five conservative justices arbitrarily decided that racially motivated voter suppression was no longer a problem).

Actually, if I recall correctly the point was more that voter suppression was possibly no longer more of a problem in those particular states that were required to obtain pre-clearance for redistricting than in other states that were not required to obtain pre-clearance. And indeed ...

Quote:On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.

The SC could have let the section of the law stand. However, I remember thinking, even at the time, that if pre-clearance was a good idea for SOME states, maybe it should be required of ALL states.

Again, I think this is a problem subject to CONGRESSIONAL solution. If Congress were to write a law with more explicit and comprehensive requirements required of ALL states, the problem of gerrymandering could be solved (or at least reduced).

Quote: The conservative justices's basic worldview is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what subjects impact interstate commerce or how to set up regulatory agencies, the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted.

Can you provide some examples? Have they said so? What rulings have they made? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote: The conservative justices's basic worldview is that Congress lacks the power to decide for itself what subjects impact interstate commerce or how to set up regulatory agencies, the agencies themselves lack the power to decide how to enforce the rules, and American citizens lack enforceable rights to have their votes counted.

Can you provide some examples? Have they said so? What rulings have they made? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Signym, you said a few things about Justice Clarence Thomas.

An excellent example is Thomas's opinion on the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, which featured a defendant challenging the Gun-Free School Zones Act. This was, interestingly, not a Second Amendment case that attempted to argue that prohibiting guns near schools violated an individual’s rights to keep and bear arms. Rather, a 5 Republicans to 4 Democrats decision invalidated the law on federalism grounds — saying that Congress simply lacked the authority to regulate the matter.

This turned out not to be a huge deal in practice because Congress was able to come back later and rewrite the law with a specific stipulation that it only related to guns that were shipped across states.

It was, however, a shot across the bow that the Republicans on the Supreme Court were no longer going to allow the people’s elected representatives to decide for themselves what steps were and were not useful exercises of congressional authority to regulate the national economy.

The decision left a serious question as to how far the Court planned to take that new doctrine, and as long as Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was around, the answer turned out to be “not particularly far.”

But in an influential concurrence that proved to offer important hints of the shape of things to come, Clarence Thomas argued that the majority decision was written far too narrowly. The Democratic Justices who dissented from the Lopez case, Republican Thomas argued, were basically correct that the fundamental question at issue here was not so different from the one posed by lots of other federal issues. The difference is that he thought the Court should toss out the entire set of New Deal judicial decisions that held that Congress has broad authority to regulate the national economy and return to the Gilded Era doctrine that the Constitution essentially prohibits economic regulation.

Quote:It was, however, a shot across the bow that the Republicans on the Supreme Court were no longer going to allow the people’s elected representatives* to decide for themselves what steps were and were not useful exercises of congressional authority to regulate the national economy.

The decision left a serious question as to how far the Court planned to take that new doctrine, and as long as Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was around, the answer turned out to be “not particularly far.”

But in an influential concurrence that proved to offer important hints of the shape of things to come, Clarence Thomas argued that the majority decision was written far too narrowly. The Democratic Justices who dissented from the Lopez case, Republican Thomas argued, were basically correct that the fundamental question at issue here was not so different from the one posed by lots of other federal issues.

Okay, I see what you're saying.

I think what they're relying on is the section in the Constitution that says that any powers not specifically mentioned as belonging to the Federal government belongs to he states. That is the Tenth Amendment, which seems pretty clear:

Quote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I have sometimes wondered how the Federal government was able to erect such large regulatory and benefits superstructures in the face of the tenth amendment, but I think that was all based on various Congressional laws (such as the Clean Air Act) which, I'm sure, were challenged at the SC level and survived. I see a situation where some of the same old arguments may have to be re-argued all over again. I'm not sure what arguments were made the first time, but I would imagine that matters like air pollution, water pollution, banking, telecommunication etc are INTERSTATE matters which allow Federal regulation. (If these matters were devolved to the states they would wind up having to appeal to the Federal government for conflict resolution again, or would have to create their own interstate agreements to manage things.)

Kavanaugh's appointment could be troubling, but it's not that it takes away the power to regulate from our elected representatives, but shifts it to our STATE representatives instead of our Federal ones.

I would have to go back and see how programs like the Clean Air Act survived their day in court to see if the argument sounds durable enough to be "settled law". Also, to see if Kavanaugh really would be another Thomas; not sure of his previous rulings. If the programs seem shaky, the question is: Now what?

This could be solvable by amending the Tenth Amendment. In other words, there is a Congressional solution to the problem. In practice, not likely to happen.

Definitely worth keeping an eye on.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You really believe Dems will erase a 43 Seat majority of the GoP?

There have been far more dramatic House flips! I don't have a whole lot of belief in anything, but historically, it's well within the realm of possibility.

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/
111th (2009–2011) D257 R178
112th (2011–2013) D193 R242
You are thinking the Revulsion the Tea Party had for Obamination is a suitable template for those same voters rebelling against Tea Party Lite Trump, the first responsible President (or candidate) since the Tea Party coalesced?

Quote:Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us.- KIKI

I don't know HOW we got so "blessed" by being on the (apparently) permanent list of who gets a DNC survey every two-three months, but if the questions that they ask are any indication, the DNC STILL hasn't figured out what went wrong.

I wish I had that survey here so I could refer to it, but I just mailed it off, making liberal use of the "other" option and any blank spaces I could find.

According to the survey, the DNC is concerned with ... or assumes that WE'RE concerned with ... or is trying to elevate the issues of ...

They asked What is it about the Republican Party policy that you disagree with? and What is it about the Trump Presidency that disturbs you? one of the answers to that is Russia.

Next time I get one of those surveys I'll post what they contain so you can get a view of what they seem to be focusing on.

I think the thing that disturbs me ... aside from the fact that Dems seem to be as war-mongering as Repubs, if not more so ... is that they seem to have lost focus that in order to pay for all of the goodies that they want, you need a robust economy, which means production and jobs. It's not enuf to "tax the rich" because the money that the rich have was created out of thin air, it means nothing and can disappear in an instant in a financial meltdown.

You are supposed to send in money with those robo-mailer surveys. The survey part goes in the Circular File, the money is the purpose of those mailings. The topics they bring up are supposed to be the hot-button issues which spur monied Liberals to throw more cash at those issues. Because you are a Dry Hole (you don't send money), they will not include the topics which pique you.

Speaking of money, you almost got to the conclusion of the point that Fiscal Conservatives focus upon: if the entire wealth of America's wealthiest 1% were confiscated (taxed at 100%), those funds would not be enough to eliminate the Federal Debt, let alone sustain the Federal Budget for another year - and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that. Illiterate Liberals believe that is the solution to Nanny State Spending.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You are thinking the Revulsion the Tea Party had for Obamination is a suitable template for those same voters rebelling against Tea Party Lite Trump, the first responsible President (or candidate) since the Tea Party coalesced?

Quote:You are supposed to send in money with those robo-mailer surveys.

Oh, that's what I've been doing wrong! I've done the exact opposite by COSTING them money ... sometimes I just tear up the survey form and send it back to them, tagging them with the postage.

Quote: Speaking of money, you almost got to the conclusion of the point that Fiscal Conservatives focus upon: if the entire wealth of America's wealthiest 1% were confiscated (taxed at 100%), those funds would not be enough to eliminate the Federal Debt, let alone sustain the Federal Budget for another year - and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that.

I totally disagree with that.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, SECOND, just OOC I did a search for Kavanaugh plus Tenth Amendment. I found NOTHING relating them to each other.

Apparently Clarence Thomas is all by his lonesome in his interpretation.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

A reminder to casual readers of the text for 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Kavanaugh (same as Clarence Thomas would have if he had been writing the opinions) struck down several government rules. When the 10th is convenient, he uses that, but he always, without fail, finds a reason to strike down a rule using whatever tool is handiest to beat the rule to death. Federal government never, ever, has sufficient authority from either the Constitution or Congress, according to Kavanaugh, to justify anything it regulates at present. Kavanaugh's method for writing opinions is very convenient for business owners who don't wish to be regulated.

Federal regulations writ large: Kavanaugh’s net neutrality dissent also suggested he’s skeptical about the Supreme Court’s so-called Chevron doctrine, a 1984 precedent that said courts should tend to defer to federal agencies’ regulatory decisions when the agencies are interpreting ambiguous statutes. A move by conservative justices to overturn Chevron could lead to far tighter restrictions on federal regulatory powers.

Environment and climate change: Kavanaugh has weighed in on dozens of environmental cases because of his seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — and he's widely seen as critical of many Obama-era rules from the EPA. In 2012, for example, Kavanaugh wrote a decision that rejected EPA's attempt to curb air pollution that crosses state lines. He has often leaned toward restricting the EPA’s powers when he believed the agency lacked specific authorization from Congress, including in courtroom comments surrounding the Obama administration’s climate rules for power plants.

"On the policy, I understand, it's laudable, and the Earth is warming, and humans are contributing," Kavanaugh said at the time. But, he added, "under our system of separation of powers ... Congress is supposed to make the decision." The D.C. Circuit never issued its ruling in the case, which has been on hold while President Donald Trump's EPA reformulates the Obama regulation.

And in a 2014 ruling over an EPA rule on toxic mercury from power plants, Kavanaugh wrote in a dissent that EPA had acted wrongly in not weighing costs when it first decided to write a regulation. A year later, a 5-4 Supreme Court propelled Kavanaugh's reasoning into the majority.

Taxes: The IRS doesn't have the power to regulate paid tax preparers, Kavanaugh wrote in a 2014 opinion. Such oversight could make sense, he said, but "that is a decision for Congress and the President to make if they wish by enacting new legislation."

Financial regulations: Kavanaugh delivered a huge victory to conservatives in October 2016 when he wrote an opinion declaring the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a powerful banking industry watchdog first envisioned by Elizabeth Warren — to be unconstitutional. Writing for a three-judge panel, Kavanaugh said the 2010 Dodd-Frank law had wrongly placed “enormous executive power” in the CFPB’s single director, which Republicans and the banking industry want to replace with a multi-member commission. Supporters of the CFPB accused Kavanaugh of acting as a partisan activist, and the constitutionality of the CFPB's structure was later upheld.

Quote:It was, however, a shot across the bow that the Republicans on the Supreme Court were no longer going to allow the people’s elected representatives* to decide for themselves what steps were and were not useful exercises of congressional authority to regulate the national economy.

The decision left a serious question as to how far the Court planned to take that new doctrine, and as long as Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was around, the answer turned out to be “not particularly far.”

But in an influential concurrence that proved to offer important hints of the shape of things to come, Clarence Thomas argued that the majority decision was written far too narrowly. The Democratic Justices who dissented from the Lopez case, Republican Thomas argued, were basically correct that the fundamental question at issue here was not so different from the one posed by lots of other federal issues.

Okay, I see what you're saying.

I think what they're relying on is the section in the Constitution that says that any powers not specifically mentioned as belonging to the Federal government belongs to he states. That is the Tenth Amendment, which seems pretty clear:

Quote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I have sometimes wondered how the Federal government was able to erect such large regulatory and benefits superstructures in the face of the tenth amendment, but I think that was all based on various Congressional laws (such as the Clean Air Act) which, I'm sure, were challenged at the SC level and survived. I see a situation where some of the same old arguments may have to be re-argued all over again. I'm not sure what arguments were made the first time, but I would imagine that matters like air pollution, water pollution, banking, telecommunication etc are INTERSTATE matters which allow Federal regulation. (If these matters were devolved to the states they would wind up having to appeal to the Federal government for conflict resolution again, or would have to create their own interstate agreements to manage things.)

Kavanaugh's appointment could be troubling, but it's not that it takes away the power to regulate from our elected representatives, but shifts it to our STATE representatives instead of our Federal ones.

I would have to go back and see how programs like the Clean Air Act survived their day in court to see if the argument sounds durable enough to be "settled law". Also, to see if Kavanaugh really would be another Thomas; not sure of his previous rulings. If the programs seem shaky, the question is: Now what?

This could be solvable by amending the Tenth Amendment. In other words, there is a Congressional solution to the problem. In practice, not likely to happen.

Definitely worth keeping an eye on.

I can see now why you 2 both dislike Kavanaugh. You 2 both hate America, because it is structured upon The Constitution, and that Constitution is the ultimate Enemy of all Liberals. You have ignored this shared fundamental despise that you both have for The Constitution while squabbling about different facets arising from this same source.

Neither of you have brought up what most Patriotic Americans are opposed to. You support Congress enacting Unconstitutional Laws in order to prove they can do so again. The Constitution protected the States, and the Individuals, from the overburdensome and omnipotent Federal Government, and it's minions, the Beureaucrats. Having unrestrained unelected creations like IRS, FBI, CIA, EPA are what you cheer for, and you wish that these, unrecognized by The Constitution, could shred the Founding Documents by overruling Officers Recognized by The Constitution such as The President.

That you cheer on the likes of Rosenstein and his wife, Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Mueller, and all the other Criminals of the Deep State merely exposes you.

Quote:You are supposed to send in money with those robo-mailer surveys.

Oh, that's what I've been doing wrong! I've done the exact opposite by COSTING them money ... sometimes I just tear up the survey form and send it back to them, tagging them with the postage.

Quote: Speaking of money, you almost got to the conclusion of the point that Fiscal Conservatives focus upon: if the entire wealth of America's wealthiest 1% were confiscated (taxed at 100%), those funds would not be enough to eliminate the Federal Debt, let alone sustain the Federal Budget for another year - and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that.

I totally disagree with that.

???
You disagree with Facts?
You rely solely upon Libtard Maths?

What?

Forbes reports the wealthiest 400 for 2018 are only worth a combined $2.88 Trillion.
The remaining 206 Billionaires rack up approximately another $280 Billion, for a subtotal of $3.16 Trillion for the top 606.
BLS reports the Civilian Population under 260 Million. 1% would be 2.6 Million. All except the top 606 with less than a Billion.
About 910,000 (top 0.35%) would add another $10 Trillion approximately. Subtotal of about $13 Trillion.
Another 1.7 million Millionaires add about $8 Trillion of total Wealth.
For a total of $21 Trillion.
And that is contributing over $2 Trillion to Federal Revenues each year.

But Obama's bloated Spending Spree has already pushed the Federal Debt over $21 Trillion before 2018.
So then, striving for complete collapse, the Federal Budget would have a $2 Trillion deficit each year, just from the elimination of wealth which the Economy runs on.
With everybody out of a job (or working for peanuts), there would be no other Revenues, either.

Quote: Neither of you have brought up what most Patriotic Americans are opposed to. You support Congress enacting Unconstitutional Laws in order to prove they can do so again. The Constitution protected the States, and the Individuals, from the overburdensome and omnipotent Federal Government, and it's minions, the Beureaucrats. Having unrestrained unelected creations like IRS, FBI, CIA, EPA are what you cheer for, and you wish that these, unrecognized by The Constitution, could shred the Founding Documents by overruling Officers Recognized by The Constitution such as The President.

That you cheer on the likes of Rosenstein and his wife, Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Mueller, and all the other Criminals of the Deep State merely exposes you.

Oh fer chrissakes, now YOU'RE arguing with the voices in your head? It seems to me that I've taken no small amount of criticism and being called a "Russian troll" BECAUSE I was criticizing Rosenstein, Brennan, Muller etc etc etc. Have you not been reading my posts for the last ... oh .... year and a half??

Quote:You disagree with Facts?
You rely solely upon Libtard Maths?
What?
Forbes reports the wealthiest 400 for 2018 are only worth a combined $2.88 Trillion.
The remaining 206 Billionaires rack up approximately another $280 Billion, for a subtotal of $3.16 Trillion for the top 606. BLS reports the Civilian Population under 260 Million. 1% would be 2.6 Million. All except the top 606 with less than a Billion.

Again, are you arguing with the voices in your head? Did I not JUST post It's not enuf to "tax the rich" because the money that the rich have was created out of thin air, it means nothing and can disappear in an instant in a financial meltdown?

It's not the part about "taxing the rich" not being enough to fill government coffers that I disagree with, it's where you posted

Quote: and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that.

that I have a problem with.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Quote:In sum, the Constitution’s Framers thought that a bill of rights was appropriate for an unlimited government, but not for a limited one like the national government created by the Constitution. The Constitution accordingly sought to secure liberty through enumerations of powers to the government rather than through enumerations of rights to the people.

The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers. Nonetheless, beginning in 1976, a line of cases has emerged that seems to give substantive constitutional content to the Tenth Amendment. In 1986, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that a city was required to comply with federal labor laws, and that state sovereignty interests should be protected by the participation of states in the national political process, rather than by judicially-enforced principles of federalism. However, while Garcia has never been explicitly overruled, in subsequent cases the Court has indeed found judicially-enforceable limits on the power of the federal government to regulate states (and their political subdivisions) directly. So it is now meaningful to speak of “Tenth Amendment doctrine.” Those cases all involve action by the federal government that in some way regulates or commands state governments, such as by telling states what policies they must adopt, New York v. United States (1992), forcing state or local executive officials to implement federal laws, Printz v. United States (1997), or conditioning the states’ acceptance of federal money on compliance with certain conditions, South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment has not been invoked by the Court to protect individual citizens against the exercise of federal power.

Whether the Tenth Amendment actually is, or ought to be, serving as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism is a matter of great controversy, both on and off the Court. Do these “Tenth Amendment” cases really involve the Tenth Amendment, or do they simply interpret (or perhaps misinterpret) specific grants of federal power in light of certain principles codified in the Tenth Amendment, but present in the Constitution’s structure and design even before the Bill of Rights was ratified?

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Quote: Neither of you have brought up what most Patriotic Americans are opposed to. You support Congress enacting Unconstitutional Laws in order to prove they can do so again. The Constitution protected the States, and the Individuals, from the overburdensome and omnipotent Federal Government, and it's minions, the Beureaucrats. Having unrestrained unelected creations like IRS, FBI, CIA, EPA are what you cheer for, and you wish that these, unrecognized by The Constitution, could shred the Founding Documents by overruling Officers Recognized by The Constitution such as The President.

That you cheer on the likes of Rosenstein and his wife, Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Mueller, and all the other Criminals of the Deep State merely exposes you.

Oh fer chrissakes, now YOU'RE arguing with the voices in your head? It seems to me that I've taken no small amount of criticism and being called a "Russian troll" BECAUSE I was criticizing Rosenstein, Brennan, Muller etc etc etc. Have you not been reading my posts for the last ... oh .... year and a half??

Quote:You disagree with Facts?
You rely solely upon Libtard Maths?
What?
Forbes reports the wealthiest 400 for 2018 are only worth a combined $2.88 Trillion.
The remaining 206 Billionaires rack up approximately another $280 Billion, for a subtotal of $3.16 Trillion for the top 606. BLS reports the Civilian Population under 260 Million. 1% would be 2.6 Million. All except the top 606 with less than a Billion.

Again, are you arguing with the voices in your head? Did I not JUST post It's not enuf to "tax the rich" because the money that the rich have was created out of thin air, it means nothing and can disappear in an instant in a financial meltdown?

It's not the part about "taxing the rich" not being enough to fill government coffers that I disagree with, it's where you posted

Quote: and meanwhile there would no longer be an Economy, no Jobs, no Productivity, no services, and no reserves to restart any of that.

that I have a problem with.

And with all of the money gone, where would the money come from, to restart any of that?
You are hoping Putin and China will buy America for cheap? Is that your solution?

Where's your outrageous indignation now? Here it is Sigs creates another thread on the Kavanaugh debacle and not a peep from you about unnecessarily
duplicating threads?

WTF gives!?

sgg

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki:
What can democrats do ... it depends on the tools at their disposal, and whether or not they get their act together.

Looking at the polls, the 'democratic' party lead has shrunk significantly, from double digits to single digits in many cases, even low single digits. But assuming the leads, while narrow, have solidified, democrats may gain control of the House. That puts them in position to be the Party of No. Last time they were in that position (in the Senate, led by the forgettable marshmallow Harry Reid), they forgot to put on their big-boy pants. Party discipline was non-existent, and worse, they didn't have a message about what they stood for, and that they were there for us. As a result, they looked like whipped dogs trying to figure out how not to get kicked. Their tenure was an abysmal failure.

ETA: Even if they don't gain a single majority anywhere, democrats have the power of words. This would be the perfect opportunity for democrats to formulate their message.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

The Supreme Court becomes another branch of the Republican Party. Trump can tell the 5 GOP justices how he wants them to rule. The calls will be secret, but those phone calls will be made. Trump will be obeyed. The GOP justices will deny that they obey Trump's will, but rather they follow only a higher power, the Constitution.

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

The Supreme Court becomes another branch of the Republican Party. Trump can tell the 5 GOP justices how he wants them to rule. The calls will be secret, but those phone calls will be made. Trump will be obeyed. The GOP justices will deny that they obey Trump's will, but rather they follow only a higher power, the Constitution.

Quote:And with all of the money gone, where would the money come from, to restart any of that?
You are hoping Putin and China will buy America for cheap? Is that your solution?- JSF

Where did the money come from to begin with?

THE BANKS.

And no, it's not "savings" that they loan out, they just make their loans up out of thin air. You want a loan? POOF! Here's two extra zeros in your bank account!

That's why I posted that the money that the wealthy have is made out of thin air, because it was. And that money wasn't sunk into jobs, investment, or the economy, it was put into stock buybacks, derivatives, forex/cryptocurrency, real estate, fine art etc. And that "value" can disappear the moment the bubble on which it rides pops.

But if money was created before, more can always be created now. Only THIS time, put it into something productive.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You are thinking the Revulsion the Tea Party had for Obamination is a suitable template for those same voters rebelling against Tea Party Lite Trump, the first responsible President (or candidate) since the Tea Party coalesced?

67th (1921-1923) D131 R302 (Independent Republican (1), Socialist (1))
68th (1923-1925) D207 R225 (Farmer-Labor (2), Socialist (1))
Yes, of course.
The Election of '94 is the Gold Standard of Party flips in the House, in favor of Republicans ! Democraps have never had such a Gold Standard. Democrats had many accomplishments at the time. Cleveland's Boubon Democrats were able to generate Economic Depression (only surpassed by FDR and Obama), Slaveholders were still able to prevent Blacks from voting or prospering (no Elected Republican owned any Slaves), Coal Miners Strike (removing coal miners from Dem ranks), immediately followed by Pullman Strike, crippling Railroad transportation, and Cleveland using Federal Troops to intervene in them.

And the far lesser known Party flip of 1922, going from a Republican Majority 171 Seats all the way over to a Republican Majority 18 Seats.
Flipping from Republican Majority to Republican Majority, yes sireee.

You should stop using Libtard Maths to present your point, they are mostly just amusing.

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.

Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.

2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.

So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

More Koolaid for table 6!

Keep laughing. All the way into a Republican super majority one day.

You Democrats just gave the GOP their long time wet dream in the Supreme Court.

Just think about how much worse it could be if Donald Trump was at least a little likable.

I mean REALLY think about that one.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

What if Trump copies the Reagan '84 slogan: are you better off now than 4 years ago?

With Stock Markets at All-Time Highs, Unemployment at Record Lows, particularly Minority Unemployment, Peace breaking out all over the World, Criminals of the previous Democrat Adminstration finally being thrown in Prison. It might be the greatest landslide ever. Even if he's still not likeable. How long has it been since a New Yorker, the least likeable of Americans, was President?

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

The Supreme Court becomes another branch of the Republican Party. Trump can tell the 5 GOP justices how he wants them to rule. The calls will be secret, but those phone calls will be made. Trump will be obeyed. The GOP justices will deny that they obey Trump's will, but rather they follow only a higher power, the Constitution.

WAIT!
SCOTUS stops being a Branch of the Democrat Party? But that's the only Branch they have control of!

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is entirely different than the other Kavanaugh thread.

Consider it "Post Kavanaugh".

So...

now what?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

The Supreme Court becomes another branch of the Republican Party. Trump can tell the 5 GOP justices how he wants them to rule. The calls will be secret, but those phone calls will be made. Trump will be obeyed. The GOP justices will deny that they obey Trump's will, but rather they follow only a higher power, the Constitution.

I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.

Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.

2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.

So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Civil War? Seems fairly short-lived, with only one side owning guns, or able to practice Gun Control (hitting your target).
Or Libs could bring down programmed technology - which only Libtards and other social illiterates are dependant upon.

Inner Cities can shoot each other at a range of 2 feet, and endure rampant starvation, thus decimating the Democrap base.

This might be funny to think about, Civil War now that Democrats have lost their Slaves.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Democraps have never had such a Good Standard."

I'm afraid you're displaying some blatant partisan ignorance again. There were many 'flips' in the House, though not all as dramatic. Some were made by steady, incremental gains over the years, that built up to a majority, then continued on to a super-majority. Others were small nibbles at the edges of a nearly balanced House. And then, there's the fact that democrats held the House nearly continuously (4 years excepted) for 60 years, from 1935 to 1995. Republicans would have to control the House for another roughly 41 years to rival that record.

But, we're getting away from the original point. While I make no prediction on whether or not the democrats will win enough seats to gain a majority in the House, it's well within historic possibility.

Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Democraps have never had such a Good Standard."

I'm afraid you're displaying some blatant partisan ignorance again. There were many 'flips' in the House, though not all as dramatic. Some were made by steady, incremental gains over the years, that built up to a majority, then continued on to a super-majority. Others were small nibbles at the edges of a nearly balanced House. And then, there's the fact that democrats held the House nearly continuously (4 years excepted) for 60 years, from 1935 to 1995. Republicans would have to control the House for another roughly 41 years to rival that record.

But, we're getting away from the original point. While I make no prediction on whether or not the democrats will win enough seats to gain a majority in the House, it's well within historic possibility.

Thanks for pointing out the wrong word, an app changed it.

Regarding your Math. From 1994 Election until next month is 24 years, with the 4 year exception included. So 36 more years, not 41.
After Nov 2020, only 34 more to go.

You may have heard of algore's invention of the interwebs. The widespread availability of it seems to have coincided with the period of which you point out. One of it's promises was the unfiltered, unfettered distribution of facts, information. So the better informed Electorate (excepting that sophomoric Rock-The-Vote experiment in 2006 with the Uninforned Youth) has been making better Voting choices. Now how are Democraps going to finagle away information from the Voting Electorate? MSM was slow to catch on, but have been battling mightily against the horrors of free, unbiased and unfiltered information.

"Blatant Partisan Ignorance"
Hmmmmm. Perhaps Reality really does have Bias. For the moment I'm still leaning towards Facts and Truth not being the Definition of Ignorance. And Facts and Truth not being the offspring of Party. I could see that Conservative Partisans are the offspring of Facts and Truth, but your argument is for the opposite, which does not compute.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I'm not talking about Trump.

I'm talking about you. I'm talking about me.

I'm talking about how we keep this fucking country from going crazy and devolving into Civil War.

The country was completely crazy from 1966 going forward. Heard of Vietnam? Watergate? If those real world fiascos and the stupidity surrounding them couldn't keep Nixon from being re-elected in 1972, what words could Democratic politicians say that could stop the crazy people from re-electing Trump? People who actually voted for Nixon are still around, and they learned nothing, understood nothing, while Nixon was in office. It was just an absolute fluke that Nixon quit because he knew there was something wrong in his head. If Nixon had fought back, his supporters would have stayed with him. Those actual Nixon voters breed a new generation of Trump voters who are like their parents and grandparents. They will stay with Trump if he fights back.

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Everything. Every single thing that has happened in the last two years is the fault of the Democrats, and how their party has been co-opted by the extreme Authoritarian Left.

NONE of this would have happened in a GWB world, because there was a system of checks and balances between the parties.

2016 through 2018 just happened. The November elections will likely be much more of the same.

So.... now what for the Democrats?

Are you going to regain some of your sanity, find your way, and throw the "reaverfans" out of your party?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Are Trump voters seriously considering not voting for Trump a second time? But only if Democratic politicians stop opposing Trump’s decisions? (I’m pretty sure Trump has several more weirdos he wants on the Supreme Court, all of them now serving on the Federal bench, as was Kavanaugh.)

I don’t think Democrats should change themselves to please Trump voters, to get them to switch sides. I don’t think Democrats can change themselves enough to make a Trump voter switch and, most importantly, stay switched for two or more elections in a row. Why change horses (or Trump) in midstream? The ultimate campaign slogan says precisely that: “Why change Dicks in the middle of a screw? Nixon in 72!” That was a winner for Nixon and the slogan was used only by Democrats.

Quote:Originally posted by second:
Are Trump voters seriously considering not voting for Trump a second time? But only if Democratic politicians stop opposing Trump’s decisions?

I didn't say anything about Trump.

Quote:I don’t think Democrats should change themselves to please Trump voters, to get them to switch sides.

I agree

Quote: I don’t think Democrats can change themselves enough to make a Trump voter switch and, most importantly, stay switched for two or more elections in a row.

You need to stop looking at this is a Trump thing, or about "Trump Voters".

A lot of people who voted for Trump are independents and even former Liberals that had enough with the Democratic Party as it is in 2016 onward.

How many? I don't know. But as you like to bring up often, Trump lost the popular vote.

The Democratic Party doesn't need to change so much that it would steal 60 Million votes away from Trump in 2020.

It would absolutely destroy Trump if it stopped being the party of division though.

As I've said many times before, it needs to throw away identity politics as a message. You seem to be getting this. You're the only person in here with negative things to say about Kavanaugh that were based off of facts instead of feels.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:Originally posted by second:
Are Trump voters seriously considering not voting for Trump a second time? But only if Democratic politicians stop opposing Trump’s decisions?

I didn't say anything about Trump.

Quote:I don’t think Democrats should change themselves to please Trump voters, to get them to switch sides.

I agree

Quote: I don’t think Democrats can change themselves enough to make a Trump voter switch and, most importantly, stay switched for two or more elections in a row.

You need to stop looking at this is a Trump thing, or about "Trump Voters".

A lot of people who voted for Trump are independents and even former Liberals that had enough with the Democratic Party as it is in 2016 onward.

How many? I don't know. But as you like to bring up often, Trump lost the popular vote.

The Democratic Party doesn't need to change so much that it would steal 60 Million votes away from Trump in 2020.

It would absolutely destroy Trump if it stopped being the party of division though.

As I've said many times before, it needs to throw away identity politics as a message. You seem to be getting this. You're the only person in here with negative things to say about Kavanaugh that were based off of facts instead of feels.

Do Right, Be Right. :)I'm gonna read your mind and tell you what is going inside there based upon what I know about real people who think the Democrats should "Throw away identity politics". They hate identity politics because they hate those separate identities. They think everybody should strive to be as similar as their psychology allows and everybody has got the same history and problems, approximately, taken from a curated and approved list that all humans have in common. They don't want to know about your odd language, your accented English, your peculiar culture, your crazy family, your religion, your unique problems, your idiosyncratic goals. They think Americans should have a common purpose that we can all agree on. They want everybody to strive to become Bland-Americans, no other kind of hyphenated-American. Democrats are not gonna throw away Identity Politics to please white Americans that hate those identities like they hate niggers, or chinks, or gooks, or spicks, or mex-skins, or queers, or dykes, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Muslims, or foreigners, or Liberals, or what-have-yous.

Quote: I'm gonna read your mind and tell you what is going inside there based upon what I know about real people who think the Democrats should "Throw away identity politics".

Once again, you're arguing with the voices in your head. That's a REALLY bad habit which promotes a tremendous amount of misunderstanding and ill-will, and I wonder why you - or ANYone- would do that here.

Quote: They hate identity politics because they hate those separate identities. They think everybody should strive to be as similar as their psychology allows and everybody has got the same history and problems, approximately, taken from a curated and approved list that all humans have in common. They don't want to know about your odd language, your accented English, your peculiar culture, your crazy family, your religion, your unique problems, your idiosyncratic goals.

The funny thing is, I see a lot of people on the so-called "left" who feel the same way. They're all about tolerance, until someone tells them that they voted for Trump, or that their religion dictates that being gay is wrong, or that Americans should have a common identity, or that they want and need manufacturing jobs, or that men are indeed different than women, or that Russia is a rival not an enemy ...

NOPE! Once somebody brings up a problem or identity or goal that is off the LIBERAL'S curated list (and BTW it's liberals who're always talking about their "curated" lives, not Trump supporters) tolerance goes right out the window and violence becomes the accepted response. Just look at the slavering liberals here.

Quote: They think Americans should have a common purpose that we can all agree on. They want everybody to strive to become Bland-Americans, no other kind of hyphenated-American.

Having a common purpose doesn't mean being bland.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Wait. You DO want a functioning society, don't you, SECOND?
Oh, that's right: YOU DON'T. I don't have to "read your mind" because you said so yourself:

Quote: "The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

THEREFORE, ANYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT COMMON IDENTITY OR IDENTITY POLITICS IS SUSPECT.

You're really not prepared to argue the idea of common goals based on its merits, because such a concept is antithetical to your wealth. Therefore, IMHO we should simply ignore anything you have to say on the topic.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

In order to have a functioning society, we have to recognize that we are all part of a common project here.

Notice that I didn't say that we have to "believe" that we're part of a common project, but that we have to RECOGNIZE that fact. Because, like it or not, we're stuck with each other. We're not "citizens of the world" ... there's no such thing, unless you can show me the voting booth where I voted for "world leader".

NOPE! We're citizens of the United States. We're bound by USA laws, our Constitution, our system of government. Our Federal taxes go to the same place, our economy is bounded by the same border, we contribute to the same military, our environment is protected by the same laws.

Like it or not, we have to make this project work; HOPEFULLY we can make this project work acceptably for everybody. THAT is the nature of our common identity. It doesn't mean that we have to be bland (SECOND, you say such stupid shit) but we DO have to figure out how this place is supposed to function, and what our part is.

The problem that I have with "identity politics" is that the victim-groups aren't concerned with making this place work for EVERYBODY, they simply want to make this place work FOR THEMSELVES. Do "black lives matter" more, or less, than anyone else's? Are "women's rights" different than men's? Are "men's rights" different than women's?

Once splinter-groups start framing their goals as being EXCLUSIVE to them, they turn rights into PRIVILEGE, where my rights mean your oppression. But "rights" aren't a zero-sum game ... at least, not in a system of equality.

So one problem with identity politics is that it turns us into a bunch of hate-filled children fighting over a cookie. Where does that get us? Nowhere, IMHO.

-----
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

You Democrats just gave the GOP their long time wet dream in the Supreme Court.

I'm not a Dem, fart head. MATH and the GOP - the people who wouldn't stop to p*ss on your shoes if they were on fire - gave all of US Kavanaugh. You're too busy worrying about who's calling you names to see anything larger.

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Just think about how much worse it could be if Donald Trump was at least a little likable.
I mean REALLY think about that one.

I'd rather think about reality - ever think about that? I mean REALLY think about that one?

The reality is that nationalist/populist leaders are springing up all over the world. They're on the right AND the left .. Orban in Hungary, Duterte in the Philippines, Kurz in Austria, Farage in the UK, Trump in the USA, LePen in France, Wilders in the Nederlands, even Bolsonaro in Brazil (people would have voted for Lula, if he had been allowed to run). There are at least a dozen more examples.

Some are more competent than others, some are clowns (literally, Beppo Grillo in Italy).

What this tells me is that the old order is breaking down under a combination of disgust with corruption of the "establishment" parties, overburdening of debt, and mass migration. Most people would tolerate various deficiencies if their economies were OK, but international economies are breaking down; so I suspect that a lot of this is rooted in 2008.

What does this have to do with "now what"?

The Democratic Party HAS to address the economy, that's what. And I don't mean the "economy" of handouts, I mean the economy of production, consumption, and jobs.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Once again, you're arguing with the voices in your head. That's a REALLY bad habit which promotes a tremendous amount of misunderstanding and ill-will, and I wonder why you - or ANYone- would do that here.

Signym, I've read hundreds of thousands of words you have written and you have proven to be full of shit. Who knows where you got such a high opinion of yourself (maybe it is all pretend and make believe with you) because whatever those sterling qualities you think you possess and those real world accomplishments of yours that you imagine we believe in, you have not displayed them here at fff.net. As far as anyone can truly tell, you are not the real thing. Moving on to something provable and very real:

FBI Director Christopher Wray, installed after Trump fired James Comey for refusing to limit the scope of the Russia investigation, said and did nothing as the White House ordered limits on a reopened background check of Kavanaugh.

The bureau agreed not to interview Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford, who accused him of sexually assaulting her, or to respond to many people stepping forward with new information. They agreed not to follow up on possible lies Kavanaugh is accused of telling in his Senate testimony. And they made other concessions unknown to the public or even Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

According to the New York Times’s reporting, White House lawyer Don McGahn made sure relevant questions went deliberately unexplored because, he believed, “a wide-ranging inquiry like some Democrats were demanding — and Mr. Trump was suggesting — would be potentially disastrous for Judge Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation to the Supreme Court.”

At the end of the one-week deadline, the FBI handed a document to Congress that didn’t seek to clarify seriously the veracity of the accusations against Kavanaugh, but its existence gave Republicans the cover they wanted to back him anyway.

The upshot is that the independent FBI established after Watergate and whose existence everyone reaffirmed during Wray’s confirmation process is now dead. Other senior FBI leaders have already been purged, and Trump has made it clear that he has no compunction about ordering further purges.

Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to the integrity of the Court — and the implications of how he got there go well beyond the Court to the entire legal order at the FBI.

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.